14 comments:

i am reminded of that story of that nigerian woman who was going to be stoned to death for adultry from a few years ago. you remember, she got pregnant months after her husband was dead, so locals figured she had to have had sex outside of marriage, so they would stone her after she gave birth to the child. And she and her lawyer gained international attention claiming that she was innocent because the sex was actually rape.

That wasn't true, btw. it was consensual. i don't say that to denounce her. I don't blame her for telling that story. I just figured we should be clear on what the actual story was.

Then one of the courts hearing the appeal found her innocent. the logic? well, the court said, she got pregnant something like 5 months after her husband died, and according to islamic law sperm can stay alive something like 7 months. so the presumption is legally that she did not cheat, that she got pregnant from her dead husband's sperm and she was, as a matter of law, innocent.

and you sit there and go, "okay, not that i am not happy that this woman won't be stoned to death, but... wtf? That is not scientifically true." You would have preferred them instead to write the ruling that says something like, "she will not be stoned to death because we are not f---king barbarians, you idiots." Seriously, we need more insults and curse words in our judicial opinions.

Now i don't know if these guys are innocent or guilty, but wtf. seriously, wtf.

Btw, i think you are overlooking the most hilarious detail in the story. apparently the virginity spots only disappear after sex with a woman. solo operations or gay ones don't count.

which brings to mind an old joke from Scott Thompson of "the Kids in the Hall." If you don't know he is a flamboyantly gay comedian. He was on Politically Incorrect talking about the Clinton Lewinsky thing and he said, "according to Clinton's definition of sex, I'm still a virgin!" ha!

Note that they were not cleared or exonerated based on the "ear-test". The acupuncturist concluded that they were innocent & that motivated her to advocate for them. This resulted in a second look at the case, at which time deficiencies were noted in the evidence that was used to convict them. Such as the fact that witness statements supporting their innocence were not part of the case file.

But thanks to the media & blogosphere, most people will know as fact that these guys were proven innocent based on red spots on the back of their ears, and not on technical deficiencies.

i could be wrong, but the article didn't seem to think that was the case. but i suppose it could be wrong.

So maybe it is like the example of the nigerian woman i mentioned above: right result, for a f---ed up reason.

But let's not forget this is communist justice. don't believe for one moment it is trustworthy. Guilt and innocence have only a passing relationship between who is punished and who is not in a communist country.

"Investigators who revisited the case discovered flaws, including the fact that testimonies of witnesses indicating their innocence were not included in the case's files, according to the local Pioneer newspaper. The three men, having served 10 years in jail, were released in January."

Btw, its worth noting that alot of the asian communist stress on accupuncture and accupressure was part of the approach designed to "reject western medicine" in favor of stuff that didn't actually work, but cost alot less than western medicine. i remember watching a documentary called the "barefoot doctors" which was howlingly bad in its blatant propoganda. sad thing is an american film crew went along with the whole thing. i used to find it stunning that any american would side with our enemies so openly in the past. then since 9-11, i found it wasn't just in the past anymore.